The literature on PBL is both extensive and incomplete. It resembles a big jigsaw puzzle with hypotheses, theoretical frameworks and premonitions drawn from the vast body of knowledge which is the literature on learning itself. In spite of the breadth of literature there are gaps in the puzzle that remains unfilled, unassembled. This could possibly be because of the very nature of the approach; existing problems in PBL and the way it is implemented in particular disciplines.
Problem-based learning has proved to be both contentious and pervasive in health professional education settings. Its introduction typically challenges institutions, educators and learners to reflect critically on their educational philosophy and their educational priorities (Schwartz, Mennin, & Webb, 2001). However, many have criticised the existing literature and suggested improvements. For example, Pintrich (2000) contended that there is a clear need for more descriptive, ethnographic and observational research on how different features of the context can shape, facilitate and constrain self-regulated learning. Kelson (2000) noted the contradiction that self- directed learning is identified simultaneously as an assumption and an outcome of PBL curriculum and suggested that this be investigated. Van der Vleuten and Schuwirth (2004) identified the need for more qualitative studies that build theory,
56 focusing on direct validity or educational impact particularly concerning research in assessment.
Constructivist pedagogies are becoming part of engineering education courses. Expectations have emerged from the industrial world where knowledge is seen as created rather than received (Holt-Reynolds, 2000), mediated by discourse rather than transferred by lectures (Vygotski, 1962), explored and transformed rather than remembered as a set of positivistic ideas (Dewey, 1969). Public awareness of what engineers are and how they significantly contribute to the community in general has resulted in closer scrutiny of engineering education.
Consequently, most engineering educators no longer see dispensing knowledge as sufficient to educate engineers. Teachers are asked to encourage active student participation and to use students’ existing ideas as a basis to construct new disciplinary and cross-disciplinary understandings. Teachers are asked to facilitate student learning by actively engaging their participation and using that as a context to liberate students’ thinking.
On the other hand, the engineering industry expects students to be business-ready as well as work-ready. They expect students to possess high level innovative and creative skills. They expect students to work at clock speed and not at calendar speed. It is interesting to note that some engineering educators have called for further research into staff engagement and student engagement in order to restructure, refocus and rationalise educational methods. They call for a fundamental change in the culture of learning in engineering schools (Singh, 2006).
Many questions remain regarding the effectiveness of PBL; but two key questions are ‘What do students learn?’ and ‘How do they respond to the system?’ There are different perspectives from which these questions have been approached (Nisbet et al., 2005). These include an institutional perspective with a focus on administrative and resource issues (Bridges, 1992), a teacher’s perspective with a focus on what students learn, changing content and staff development and a student perspective with a focus on dysfunctional groups (Dolmans, Wolfhagen, & Vleuten, 2001), absence in PBL sessions and meetings (Kaufman & Mann, 2001), and reactions to the change in learning system (Cita & Van, 1997).
57 While there is an established literature on what students learn in PBL (Hmelo-Silver, 2004; Savin-Baden, 2000; Strobel & Barneveld, 2008), there are fewer studies that explore how students function as part of a PBL team. Hence, in the current study, the main focus is on the experience of engineering students in the PBL process and its effects on their learning. The shift to PBL represents a shift from teacher-centred to learner-centred education. It also assumes a shift from independent learning to collaborative learning. This study therefore focuses, in part, on student responses to this shift in emphasis.
The existing engineering curriculum at most Australian universities already engages its students in traditional problem-solving. The introduction of PBL is expected to extend this by emphasising cross-disciplinary learning and helping students gain both generic skills and technical knowledge and skills. This learner-centred approach hopes to help students to strengthen and emphasize the importance of the discipline as a whole and the interdependence of its parts in other areas (Kaufman & Mann, 2001). PBL is expected to equip students with the confidence, life skills and learning skills that they often lack on entry, while enhancing their engagement and encouraging deep approaches to learning in their technical subjects throughout the program. It is planned that students will systematically develop the communication, problem- solving, and teamwork skills that are vital for employment in modern industry (Victoria University, 2005). It is claimed that PBL will also provide students with experience in cross-functional skills and substantially reduce teaching efforts in later years of the program as students take responsibility for their own learning (Nisbet et al., 2005), thereby ensuring every student’s capability and motivation for life long learning (Dempsey, 2002).
In conclusion, the present study aims to investigate a PBL curriculum from the students’ viewpoint. It will explore the learning cultures that developed as the students participated in an engineering PBL program. As might be expected, the learning cultures reflected the heterogeneity of the students and their different responses to being given more responsibility for learning in this type of curriculum. This study will identify, explore and report on the factors that impinged on or encouraged student learning behaviour and attitudes towards learning in their first year of an undergraduate engineering course. Studying the learning cultures that developed in
58 PBL teams was designed to provide evidence to further theorize about the models of self-regulation in autonomous learners (Nisbet et al., 2005). This study also examines the influence of the learning cultures that developed in this PBL environment on learning outcomes, in particular those relating to cross-disciplinary learning and creativity. The intent overall is to provide evidence that may prove useful in improving the quality of teaching or enhancing the curriculum. In the following chapter, the research questions of interest, the research design and the research methodology that were used to conduct this study will be presented and explained.
59
Chapter 3
Research design and methodology
3.1 Introduction
This chapter provides details of the systematic approach to the research process that was used for this study. This chapter is divided into three sections. The research aims and the research questions are presented in the first section. The second section includes detailed explanation of the research methodology used in this study and a rationale for using such an approach for collecting data. This section also contains a description of the methods used to collect data for this study and the methods used for data analysis. All research procedures reported in this thesis were approved by the University Human Ethics Committee, Victoria University. The credibility of the study is discussed in the last section of this chapter where the validation methods to confirm the integrity of data analysis are presented.